jesusfreak
Guest
|
 |
« Reply #90 on: January 20, 2004, 02:57:38 am » |
|
God considered them worthy of the sacrifice of His Son.
al Hartman
Perhaps. Verne The referred to qoute has nothing to do with the "application" of salvation, only the availablity. I believe you misread mine as your responses have everything to do with a topic I specifically excluded in my statement? Regardless, if your intent was to exemplify the inability of Man to judge if another is "saved", I completely misunderstood your original statement  -- lucas |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jesusfreak
Guest
|
|
« Reply #91 on: January 20, 2004, 03:15:40 am » |
|
It is my humble opinion that the distinction between "application" and "availability" is a distinction without a difference...why? God's purpose in the sacrifice of His Son was not to make salvation available, it was to save!!
This thought would be condusive to restricting Man's free choice, would it not? Actually, before I assume, is salvation automatically applied to every Man (no action whatsoever on Man's part, All Man go to heaven)? If not, this becomes an availabilty and not an inherent trait. -- lucas |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jesusfreak
Guest
|
|
« Reply #92 on: January 20, 2004, 05:04:58 am » |
|
It is my humble opinion that the distinction between "application" and "availability" is a distinction without a difference...why? God's purpose in the sacrifice of His Son was not to make salvation available, it was to save!!
This thought would be condusive to restricting Man's free choice, would it not? Absolutely! Man's free choice does not extend to the realm of countermanding the purposes of Jehovah. God's initial purpose was to give Man Free Will; adding this qualification seems to indicate that you believe every Man will be saved, regardless of actions in their life? Anything else would be counter-intuitive to your presented argument. Actually, before I assume, is salvation automatically applied to every Man (no action whatsoever on Man's part, All Man go to heaven)? If not, this becomes an availabilty and not an inherent trait.
--
lucas
Since we know that all men will not be saved, the answer to this query is self-evident....
Your conclusion is correct. An argument for limited extent is necessarily invoked...
So we keep qualifying until everyone is appeased of his or her place in this scenario? If all men will not be saved, how can you say that God's purpose was "to save" AND say that God will achieve his purpose? It is for this reason that the distinction is made. (i should note, it is not quite fair to the discussion to edit your old posts to fix your statements to support new points Any following comments where made on the faith of those statements; what you stated and not necessarily what you were thinking -- lucas |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 20, 2004, 05:14:19 am by Lucas Sturnfield »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jesusfreak
Guest
|
|
« Reply #93 on: January 20, 2004, 10:39:56 pm » |
|
God's initial purpose was to give Man Free Will; adding this qualification seems to indicate that you believe every Man will be saved, regardless of actions in their life? Anything else would be counter-intuitive to your presented argument.
Was that indeed God's initial purpose? I would ask you to what end? God's initial purpose was that man would have fellowship with Him and glorify Him forever. Man's free will was not an end in inself but that it would be harnessed to the worship of God alone. I would prefer not to begin discussing why we were given free will and the auspices of God, as it is irrelevant to the initial purpose of my presence on this thread. I will say, however, that in my view, Christ's purpose was not to control neither our actions nor our final outcome, merely provide an alternative to certain "death". If you believe we ultimately have no choice, that souls are either destined for heaven or hell, I would shake my head at your despondent view but would accept it So we keep qualifying until everyone is appeased of his or her place in this scenario? If all men will not be saved, how can you say that God's purpose was "to save" AND say that God will achieve his purpose? It is for this reason that the distinction is made. Your argument would be valid if I had stated that it was God's purpose to save all men. I did not state that. So where do the differences between heaven and hell become manifested within a Man's life? I'd note, it is not quite fair to the discussion to edit your old posts to fix your statements to support new points Any following comments where made on the faith of those statements; what you stated and not necessarily what you were thinking -- lucas I am less concerned about winning the exchange than I am about being clear. It is common for me to go back and append what I hope are clarifying thougts in response to comments that what was said was ambiguous; I know others will read. Perhaps I should simply post anew. I do not change my meaning, and more often than not I will add as a post script. I think the key is transparency. If you think an edit unfairly altered my previously stated position I would be happy to correct or clarify as needed. I did not mean to call you a "cheater" or anything of the sort  (nor do I neccesarily care about "winning") - rather, I feel it would be more clear to the people following through this read to add clarity in the resulting posts, rather than infusing it haphazardly throughout. It is simply the nature of the medium upon which we are conveying our ideas. p.s I suppose one way of looking at this is to say that since God has the final choice, He gets to determine the outcome. This in no way negates man's free will in my opinion. God is the God of variables...His purposes will ultimately stand, man's "free will" choices notwithstanding... I would like you to be expressively clear here. What do you appraise to be God's purposes for Man? How far does Man's "free will" extend? Does it have an impact upon each one's final destination (heaven/hell)? -- lucas |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
H
Guest
|
|
« Reply #94 on: January 21, 2004, 12:16:05 am » |
|
I will say, however, that in my view, Christ's purpose was not to control neither our actions nor our final outcome, merely provide an alternative to certain "death". The Lord Jesus Christ clearly told us what His purpose was in John 6:37-39: "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." His purpose was clearly to save all those whom the Father has given Him, and this is exactly what He will do. If you believe we ultimately have no choice, that souls are either destined for heaven or hell, I would shake my head at your despondent view but would accept it We have a choice. The problem is that since the fall, human beings make the wrong choice, apart from the grace of God. Fortunately, God also has a choice, and rather than letting the entire human race perish, He chose to save some. Those whom He has chosen will come to Christ (see John 6:37) and be saved by Him. Those whom He has not chosen will make their own choices and suffer the consequences. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Oscar
Guest
|
|
« Reply #95 on: January 21, 2004, 12:38:54 am » |
|
H,
Please look for my reply to this post over on the "Salvation is a Gift" thread.
Tom
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 21, 2004, 12:40:59 am by Tom Maddux »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Joe Sperling
Guest
|
|
« Reply #96 on: January 23, 2004, 06:40:53 am » |
|
2Peter 3:9 "For God is not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance".
Some might say the "any" and "all" referred to is just those that Jesus died for in a limited atonement. But can those who he died for in a limited atonement perish? Are these not the elect, forever predestined to be saved and go to heaven? But it says that God is not willing that ANY should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Does this not argue for the fact that Jesus died for ALL men, and God has no desire that they perish, but wants them to come to repentance?
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER believes on him should not perish, but have everlasting life".-------
"But ye are not of the world...."(referring to those who have accepted him). "Therefore the world hateth you..." Yet--it says "God so loved the world"---does this not argue for an atonement that is not limited? God loves the world and is not willing that any in it persih, but that ALL might come to repentance. Of course, we realize that many will ultimately reject him--but can we legitimately say that the Lord did not die for them, but only for the elect?
I don't believe so--but it's just my opinion.
--Joe
This argument was brought to you by "ALL" laundry detergent. The laundry soap that works for all, not just a few".
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jesusfreak
Guest
|
|
« Reply #97 on: January 23, 2004, 10:43:15 am » |
|
Having therefore established that God does indeed make distinctions among his creatures, can the same argument be made as regards his dealings with mankind? Let is keep this simple at the outset. The question is:
Angels are indeed treated separately, as well as any other given beast of creation. I have not argued that God had not a purpose in his creation, but simply that Jesus’ "work" extends to all Man universally. Perhaps I may even more clearly define this to be "all which have knowledge of good and evil"? Regardless, my primary reason for this thought (universal work in terms of Man) comes from the resulting implications of anything contrary - ie, it would not be a perfect work. Does God discriminate in His dealings with men?
[...]
I will stop here for the moment and allow anyone who wishes to challenge the fundamental premise I have presented, and that is we are everywhere presented in Scripture with a God who chooses! I would argue that this is different from the present day. Granted, God is outside of time so He must remain constant to Man, but I feel the introduction of Jesus initiated a "period of grace". Grace extending to all Man; connecting the previous thought. p.s.s. Luke and others, the purpose of this excercise is not to engage in some kind of smug elitism. What I am presenting to you is intended to move you to fall on your faces before Almighty God in trembling wonder: If it is your belief, let it stand for what it is. While I might disagree with your conclusions, I am one to always respect a well-thought out position. Basically, I am not here to change anyone's opinions, but simply to thoroughly explore this topic. You need not fear any judgment of your person from me Frankly, I am quite thankful for your responses and the time you put into them. -- lucas |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
M2
Guest
|
|
« Reply #98 on: January 23, 2004, 08:00:18 pm » |
|
p.s.s. Luke and others, the purpose of this excercise is not to engage in some kind of smug elitism.
I appreciate the fact that we can discuss differing view points in a 'civil' manner on this BB. Since I am not perfect yet, my point of view is subject to change; though it has not on this topic. Lord bless, Marcia |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
H
Guest
|
|
« Reply #99 on: January 23, 2004, 08:35:48 pm » |
|
2Peter 3:9 "For God is not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance".
Some might say the "any" and "all" referred to is just those that Jesus died for in a limited atonement. But can those who he died for in a limited atonement perish? Are these not the elect, forever predestined to be saved and go to heaven? But it says that God is not willing that ANY should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Does this not argue for the fact that Jesus died for ALL men, and God has no desire that they perish, but wants them to come to repentance?
Joe, I discussed 2 Peter 3:9 in a post on February 28, 2003, 10:23:55 am on the "Discuss Doctrine / The Bible / Re:For whom did the Lord Jesus Christ die? (And why is it important?)" thread. In case you missed it, here it is again: The next verse that Tom mentioned (in his post of January 25, 2003, 02:35:07 am) was II Peter 3:9. "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." The main question that has to be answered in dealing with this verse is "who does the "any" and "all" refer to?" Most of you will probably immediately jump to the conclusion that it "obviously" refers to "any human being" and "all human beings." But does that interpretation really fit the immediate context of the passage, as well as the larger context of the rest of the Bible? First of all, Peter is writing this letter "to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." (II Pet. 1:1). In other words, he is talking to believers. If we look at the verse itself, Peter says that God is "longsuffering to us-ward". He is talking about God's longsuffering (patience) towards "us" (believers, the elect), not the entire human race. So it seems to me that the "any" and "all" of the following phrase are referring back to "us" (believers, the elect). God is not willing that any of us (believers, the elect) should perish, but that all of us (believers, the elect) should come to repentance. This seems to me to fit the immediate context of the passage much better than "any human being" and "all human beings." It also fits much better with the rest of the Bible. The "any human being" and "all human beings" interpretation would seem to be contradicted by such verses as Exodus 4:21; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; and 14:4, 8, all of which talk about the Lord hardening Pharaoh's heart; Joshua 11:20 ("For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that He might utterly destroy them, and that they might receive no mercy, but that He might destroy them, as the Lord had commanded Moses." NKJV); I Samuel 2:25, which says that the sons of Eli "did not heed the voice of their father, because the Lord desired to kill them" (NKJV); Romans 9:18 ("Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens." NKJV); and II Thessalonians 2:11-12 ("And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."), among other passages. If God really didn't want "any human being" to perish, but wanted "all human beings" to come to repentance, why did He harden the hearts of Pharaoh and others, why did He want to kill the sons of Eli, why will He send "strong delusion, that they should believe a lie"? May the Lord reveal the truth to His people! (Matt. 11:25-26) H |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Joe Sperling
Guest
|
|
« Reply #100 on: January 23, 2004, 09:36:02 pm » |
|
H----
I hear your argument, and you make a good case, but there are instances in the Bible that seem to refute what you are saying. When God judged Sodom and Gomorrah, none would listen, and the angels literally had to drag Lot out of the city. Did God himself harden these people so that they would not hear his voice? Then we have Nineveh, a foul sinful city that God sent Noah to upbraid and warn. That city repented. Did God cause all of the people to repent? And wasn't God displeased with Noah, because he was upset that the people HAD repented?
And God stated that even the very cattle there were important to him and he did not want them lost.
Of course, I cannot "prove" there is not a limited atonement--but there is something about that teaching that does not fit the God of the Bible. When we are saved we have a yearning in us to see people come to Christ. we wish we could change everyone, and make everyone come to accept Christ. The thought of someone being lost and going to hell pains us. Now, according to this teaching God has "chosen" some to go to heaven, and is "allowing" others hearts to become hardened so that they are ultimately lost. According to this teaching Jesus came to earth and died only for those who are the "elect" and whom he knows Will come to him.
Yet--in the Bible we see that the preaching of the Word in one instance is ignored, and in another is completely listened to and the whole city repents. Was everyone in that city "elected" by God to repent at the preaching of Noah?? And in the other instance, was everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah "allowed" to come to a place where they would not hear?
I cannot believe in a God who has created people knowing that they will not receive him, and whose ultimate end is the lake of Fire. The God I see in the Bible has an ultimate end of all-inclusiveness(if one will receive it), and came to die for all--that all might have a chance to receive him.
--Joe
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 23, 2004, 09:36:50 pm by Joe Sperling »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kimberley Tobin
Guest
|
|
« Reply #101 on: January 23, 2004, 09:43:14 pm » |
|
Hey Joe: I'm sure you meant "Jonah", not "Noah". We all know Noah built the ark  ! Jonah was sent to Ninevah...........but you knew that! Limited atonement, unlimited atonement..........ehhhhhhh...........I'm saved, I'm praying for those I love to be saved and I leave it in God's hands. So like us assembly minded folk to want to "prove our thesis". I am content now to be at peace with my God and man and strive to "love my neighbor as myself." Hopefully, in the process, my life (more than "preaching") is a witness to some who will "choose" for Christ. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
M2
Guest
|
|
« Reply #102 on: January 23, 2004, 10:14:48 pm » |
|
...
Of course, I cannot "prove" there is not a limited atonement--but there is something about that teaching that does not fit the God of the Bible. When we are saved we have a yearning in us to see people come to Christ. we wish we could change everyone, and make everyone come to accept Christ. The thought of someone being lost and going to hell pains us. Now, according to this teaching God has "chosen" some to go to heaven, and is "allowing" others hearts to become hardened so that they are ultimately lost. According to this teaching Jesus came to earth and died only for those who are the "elect" and whom he knows Will come to him.
Yet--in the Bible we see that the preaching of the Word in one instance is ignored, and in another is completely listened to and the whole city repents. Was everyone in that city "elected" by God to repent at the preaching of Noah?? And in the other instance, was everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah "allowed" to come to a place where they would not hear?
I cannot believe in a God who has created people knowing that they will not receive him, and whose ultimate end is the lake of Fire. The God I see in the Bible has an ultimate end of all-inclusiveness(if one will receive it), and came to die for all--that all might have a chance to receive him.
My opinion too. Except I believe that it was Jonah and not Noah. Lord bless, Marcia |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Joe Sperling
Guest
|
|
« Reply #103 on: January 23, 2004, 10:34:00 pm » |
|
Marcia--- LOL. You're right--it WAS Jonah. Noah was that guy who got swallowed by the whale, right? --Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scott McCumber
Guest
|
|
« Reply #104 on: January 23, 2004, 10:44:08 pm » |
|
Marcia--- LOL. You're right--it WAS Jonah. Noah was that guy who got swallowed by the whale, right? --Joe No, Joe, remember Noah was played by Charlton Heston in that movie!? Jonah was a bullfrog. Remember the song? S |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
